Its there now

It might depend on the os you're running the connection with...
 
Does anyone know why dx8.1 is so much lighter for win2k than win9x ?

Win98 shipped with Directx 5, so the update may have to do more to get it up to 8.1 if some people still run 5.0. On the flip side Win2k shipped with 7, I believe thus up[censored] would require less work. My theory anyway.

Thanx Pmistry, what you wrote might do the trick for me, logical it is ! But do we know if all the goodies in DX8.1 for win 9x are the very same for win2k, that I may doubt... tell that I am wrong ?

I have to agree with you on that. it seems to me that DirectX is becoming more optimized for the Windows 2000/XP platform then it is for 9x. Hard to believe but 9x is beginning to die. By killing Win95 support in 8.1, it was just the first step. By DX 9.1, 98 support will be gone for sure. I used to get better frame rates under 98 but now 2000 just trounces it, in every new driver version, and the overall stability and maturity of 2000 is nice now.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp
 
Win9x is going to die sooner than most people think. Good riddance to bad rubbish is all I can say.

June 30, 2002 is only six months away, ah yes the death of Win98 and NT4. I know this is only extended phase and not the non-supported phase. But Win95 was pretty much dead back in 99.